politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: BREAKING : Mark Levin “You Should Be Very Proud of Your President -a REAL Commander in Chief”
Source:
truthfeed.com
URL Source: http://truthfeed.com/breaking-mark- ... real-commander-in-chief/63246/
Published: Apr 8, 2017
Author: Amy Moreno
Post Date: 2017-04-08 09:56:09 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 16204
Comments: 81
Conservative talk show powerhouse Mark Levin praised President Trump’s airstrikes against a Syria airbase, saying, “that’s a real leader.” After eight years of feckless, dithering foreign policy from Obama and his administration, it’s refreshing to see STRENGTH and confidence back in the White House. On Thursday President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase believed to be housing chemical weapons. The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack on Tuesday that killed innocent women and children.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#6. To: Gatlin (#0)
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad.
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad. And there is absolutely no proof that a Tomahawk missile attack was ordered and orchestrated against Assad. Latest reports show him alive and well….he was not attacked. However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter. There are reports of heavy damage …
There are reports of heavy damage … There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.
There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. Another report says nine Syrian jets were destroyed.
Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos. If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?
Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos. For every question….there is a logical answer. The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs. That’s exactly what happened …
That’s exactly what happened … You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."
That’s exactly what happened … You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...." Then “once upon a time” [last Friday morning] Tomahawk missiles went through the roofs of these two aircraft shelters …. And the Tomahawk missiles destroyed the aircraft in those shelters without destroying the roofs of those shelters. There, Catfish….that’s exactly what happened and I am telling the story the way you want it to be told. You like it better that I started the story that way….huh? Good, then … At 0:41 in the video below, you will see the Syrians drive past the two aircraft shelters in the picture I posted. Continue watching that video and at 1:15 you will hear one Syrian say to another Syrian in Arabic … Here is a picture of one Mig-23 showing what one looks like before it met up with a Tomahawk missile … Ah, but I digress from “once upon a time.” Sorry about that, back to the “once upon a time” story … Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh … Here is the Syrian video … And so, Pete, it happened exactly the way I first told you it happened and now you have heard the story told the way you wanted it to begin … So, as with another story from the past … Pete, did you like it better when I tell the story by starting with “once upon a time?” And, I also politely ask you once again … Maybe you and Tooconservative should start a new ping list, called: “Skeptics Anonymous.” I am sure that Deckard would also be prequalified to sign up on it.
I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling. A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads. I'd like to see all of these missile bodies. They have to be somewhere. I notice this particular video offers nothing to support the idea that half of our missiles missed the airbase.
I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling. A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads. Au contraire, on what you say about the Tomahawk penetration ability. The Tomahawk was far past my time, so I only know what I read. I dealt with 5 nukes with the B-58 and eighty-four 500-pound bombs in the B-52 over Nam….with a year in the AC-130 gunship at the end of hostilities, it had the 105 and Gatlin gun. So, maybe redleghunter has the expertise to help us here, if he will. I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation. I don’t belive that is a Tomahawk in this video, but it shows that a missile can penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation….same point. Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.
#42. To: Gatlin (#41)
(Edited)
40cm is only 15 inches. Given the amount of dirt they piled on the roofs of these shelters, I think they would need more than 15" of concrete to support them, especially if these hangars are 50yo like I think. Using blown concrete, maybe you could make it work with less concrete but we didn't have those techniques back when these hangars were built. I've read that they developed a "Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator" but I'm not sure if they ever built any beyond the test program. We've built bigger and more effective penetrators since then. I think it penetrated the dirt roof and then blew up the concrete ceiling.
Your missile video seems to be a 2000lb bunker buster, BLU 109/B. Notice the painted lettering on the concrete block. Again, that is a true bunker buster, capable of penetrating hundreds of feet of dirt and then blowing up a concrete bunker. No Tomahawk can do anything like that.
I see the much smaller SDB is claimed to penetrate 3' of concrete. See video at 02:48.
See above.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
(Edited)
The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#18. To: Gatlin (#8)
However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter.
#20. To: sneakypete (#18)
(Edited)
There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
#25. To: Gatlin (#20)
Are you saying there was not heavy damage?
#27. To: sneakypete, redleghunter, Tooconservative (#25)
Are you saying there was not heavy damage?
Uh, hello Pete, they were not destroying the shelters….they were destroying the aircraft in the shelters. If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?
#34. To: Gatlin (#27)
The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.
#36. To: sneakypete, redleghunter, Tooconservative, All (#34)
The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.
If you say so, and that is what you need to hear to start the story … So the missiles came through the top [meaning the roof, of course], right?
Then at 1:19 you will hear the other Syrian say … Yea, it broke through the roof of the hanger.
At 1:29 you will hear one Syrian ask another Syrian, as they stand by a heaping pile of burned out wreckage in the aircraft shelter where the missile went through … Is this the burned down Mig-23?
And at 1:23 you will hear the Syrians ask and answer … And all of the hits came through the roof? Yes, exactly.
At 1:34, you will hear a Syrian say … It is the same in the other hanger.
And 1:34 you also see a picture of what is left of the afterburner nozzles of the burned out Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 [Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-23] “Flogger”….a Soviet made single-engine single-seat swing-wing supersonic jet fighter. 
Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room.
I hope you can now wake up to reality and fully comprehend that the Tomahawk missiles did indeed penetrate through the roofs of the aircraft shelters and destroyed the Mig-23s without ever destroying the roofs of those shelters….leaving only holes. Pete, are you saying there was not heavy damage?
#39. To: Gatlin, sneakypete, hondo68 (#36)
Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …
Here is the Syrian video …
At least they showed us a couple of Tomahawk missile bodies and some parts with Raytheon serial numbers.
#41. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete, redleghunter, All (#39)
(Edited)
Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …
Always the cynic. Picky-Picky. Will you ever give up …
Replies to Comment # 41. I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation.
Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.
#43. To: Gatlin (#41)
#44. To: Gatlin (#41)
#61. To: Gatlin (#41)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]